Nothing so amazes me more than the fact, that despite so many other languages havie large governing bodies which analyze, stay on top of and make changes to their language in order to better fit the times, that English doesn't.

I think we should, especially as its reach extends across the globe.

If I could change the English language., then I would

- add an extra grammatical tense: The "Ever Present" Tense

it annoys me somewhat to tell students to use the present for "habits, permanence, facts." If it's for all time, then there should be a specific tense that refers to this because for most people, present = now.

- I'd add two extra pronouns to reflect gender reality.

heshe and shehe

- I'd also love to revamp spelling entirely to make it better reflect the way words sound

if the ch sounds like an sh, it should be an sh

regular past tense endings are a waste of time teaching. Why not write workt not worked, filld not filled - loaded can stay loaded.

What do you think? Any bug-bears you've noticed while teaching our fair language? What would you change if you could?

In the last couple of weeks prior to restarting classes, I've been watching a lot of television. The weather's not been particularly nice and I'm too poor to do anything else. That's the downside to being a student at my age, I guess. The upside is: imagine the best conference you've ever been to and think of one of the great presentations - one that has really had an impact on your teaching... now imagine that instead of a 45 minute session you get to have access to months of amazing lectures, group discussions and articles to read to follow up and challenge yourself with. So, poverty is worth it, I guess.

But anyway, back to TV, one of the theme songs, from Weeds, has become a real earworm. It goes, for those of you who don't know it,

"Little Boxes, little boxes, on the hillside, little boxes all the same

There's a green one and a pink one and a blue one and yellow one

And they're all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same..."

The song makes me think about motivation, a lot. Or maybe I was thinking about it before the song and it just drummed it in. We all know that learning doesn't happen without motivation. But what is it really? Where does it come from?

Intrinsic motivation refers to doing something simply because it is enjoyable
while extrinsic motivation is more about getting a specific value or outcome
based on what you have done (Ryan and Deci, 2000).

Amotivation is basically when you can't be bothered.

It has also been determined, through extensive empirical research by Deci & Ryan, Vallerand and others over the decades, that extrinsic rewards put a damper on intrinsic motivation. I think though, that we have to be a bit cautious with this sort of thinking as it could very easily lead one into an assumption that extrinsic motivation is bad and that intrinsic motivation is best. A dangerous position I feel, because for the most part, whether we like it or not, our adult language learners are more likely to come to us extrinsically motivated than intrinsically.

They want to learn English to integrate into society, to get a job promotion, to ensure job security, to get a better pay cheque, to speak to their foreign colleagues and close the deal. If not this then they want to know that when they go on holiday, they won't get lost. Sure, there are a handful of housewives who just fancy learning it, but usually because someone else told them it is the "thing" to do. And the teens mostly just want to pass the course, get the certificate, and get on with life.

So where it all gets a bit sticky for me, is that sometimes our
extrinsically motivated learners really enjoy learning. Why not, after
all? Sometimes we teachers can inspire them and sometimes their
colleagues do and sometimes they develop an interest for the language -
but all this interest and high from learning a second language does not
take away their primary extrinsic goals.

In more recent research, Ryan and Deci have made a point of re-examining extrinsic motivation more closely, placing extrinsic motivation on a continuum and have created this taxonomy:

The idea is that learners can be in a state of external regulation(wanting rewards or avoiding criticism), or one of introjected regulation (constraints are internalized and set by the learner). Identified regulation means that the behavior is thought of as being self-determined and finally the last type is integrated regulation- the person learns willingly because it fits in with the rest of the life activities and life goals (Vallerand, 1992).

Despite the fact that there is so much literature on extrinsic and
intrinsic motivations and I'll continue reviewing it all, I really can't
help but wonder if motivation is not actually something quite fluid. Can't you (or our learners) be one type and the next day, another?

But more importantly, if by categorizing motivation into boxes and then onto further hazy sub-boxes, might we be missing out on the fact that humans are infinitely complex creatures who can be both intrinsically and extrinsically motivated at exactly the same time?